Add loki.source.api component
#3648
Conversation
| err := srv.Run() | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| level.Error(t.logger).Log("msg", "loki.source.api server shutdown with error", "err", err) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should consider some recovery mechanism for the case when the server dies?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Were you thinking of something in particular? In the simplest case, we could store a false for the server's readiness check and display in the component's debug info?
I don't think this should block us either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I can review this after the unification of the Server work lands.
| // NOTE: This code is copied from Promtail (3478e180211c17bfe2f3f3305f668d5520f40481) with changes kept to the minimum. | ||
| // Only the HTTP handler functions are copied to allow for flow-specific server configuration and lifecycle management. | ||
| func (s *PushAPIServer) handleLoki(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am in favour of adopting this approach instead - we can simplify a lot of surrounding code and only copy the handler functions.
component/loki/source/api/internal/lokipush/push_api_server_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| func (s *PushAPIServer) SetLabels(labels model.LabelSet) { | ||
| s.rwMutex.Lock() | ||
| defer s.rwMutex.Unlock() | ||
| s.labels = labels | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *PushAPIServer) getLabels() model.LabelSet { | ||
| s.rwMutex.RLock() | ||
| defer s.rwMutex.RUnlock() | ||
| return s.labels.Clone() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *PushAPIServer) SetKeepTimestamp(keepTimestamp bool) { | ||
| s.rwMutex.Lock() | ||
| defer s.rwMutex.Unlock() | ||
| s.keepTimestamp = keepTimestamp | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *PushAPIServer) getKeepTimestamp() bool { | ||
| s.rwMutex.RLock() | ||
| defer s.rwMutex.RUnlock() | ||
| return s.keepTimestamp | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *PushAPIServer) SetRelabelRules(rules frelabel.Rules) { | ||
| s.rwMutex.Lock() | ||
| defer s.rwMutex.Unlock() | ||
| s.relabelRules = frelabel.ComponentToPromRelabelConfigs(rules) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s *PushAPIServer) getRelabelRules() []*relabel.Config { | ||
| s.rwMutex.RLock() | ||
| defer s.rwMutex.RUnlock() | ||
| newRules := make([]*relabel.Config, len(s.relabelRules)) | ||
| for i, r := range s.relabelRules { | ||
| var rCopy = *r | ||
| newRules[i] = &rCopy | ||
| } | ||
| return newRules | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(nit, not a blocker) I'm not super convinced about the added complexity yet; in truth I don't imagine it will be often that people change the relabel rules or labels by hand that we'd win anything over not having to restart the server every time, and needing the setter/getter/having to copy the fields approach etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the other hand, detecting whether server needs a restart wasn't very pretty either. I had both implementations locally at some point, and personally I found this one to be easier to read.
Co-authored-by: Paschalis Tsilias <tpaschalis@users.noreply.github.com>
github-actions
bot
added
the
frozen-due-to-age
PR Description
Adds a new component which embeds promtail's loki push API.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
Fixes #2767
Notes to the Reviewer
Looking for early feedback on:
PR Checklist
loki.source.+network targets #3581